[gruez]

>Yes, as a Californian you can vote, but your vote is near guaranteed to have no effect, and as a result, neither of the sides cares to address your interests, solicit your opinion, advertise for your vote.

Isn't that partly their fault? If you're always going to vote for one party regardless of what they or the other party does, of course neither party is going to bother catering to you. It's kind of like declaring that you will always buy apple products, then complaining that apple doesn't address your grievances.

[bigfudge]

That doesn’t follow. A similar proportion of electors in swing and non swing states could have fixed voting patterns. The only difference in California is that the proportion of fixed electors for each party is further from 50%. That is, it might be the case that only 10% of electors in any state are ever prepared to change their mind, but the ones in Ohio get more say than the ones in Cali.

[joenot443]

I think it makes perfect sense. Presumably, if one made the declaration (as many have) that for the rest of their life they’ll always and only vote Democrat, it wouldn’t be in the party’s best interest to cater to that voter’s preference, since that vote is already secured. Much better politics to focus their campaigning and policies on the more marginal voters who are undecided or may not vote at all.

I’ve heard Americans lament about this exact concept and coming from Canada I don’t know what the solution. Sometimes I think Ross Perot was the country’s last shot at anything but the present status quo.